Would you join a lawsuit against DVC to stop/revert the 2020 reallocation?

[crvetter]

All based on the language in the POS, in particular Paragraph 3.3 of the Membership Agreement for Copper Creek (quoted below)

“However, with respect to the Condominium, each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every eighteen (18) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a One-Bedroom Vacation Home for every thirty-six (36) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Two-Bedroom Vacation Home for every forty-six (46) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Grand Villa Vacation Home for every one hundred twenty-two (122) Home Resort Vacation Points; and at least (1) Use Day in a Cabin Vacation Home for every one hundred fifteen (1150 Home Resort Vacation Points. A maximum reallocation of Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of all seasons, such that Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements would have no variation based upon seasonality or different times of the year. Similarly, a maximum reallocation of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of differences in Vacation Point reservation Requirements based upon particular Use Days in the week. Participation in certain External Exchange Programs may be based on a week for week exchange, and require reservation and deposit of seven (7) consecutive Use Day Period in a One Bedroom or Two-Bedroom Vacation Home. Therefore, in the event of maximum reallocation as described in the preceding paragraph, a Club Member would be required (absent Banking and Borrowing) to have annual Home Resort Vacation Points of at least two hundred fifty-two (252) Home Resort Vacation Points (7 Use Days X 36 Home Resort Vacation Points per Use Day) to reserve and deposit a One-Bedroom Vacation for exchange through the External Exchange Program….”

DVC has provided the following explanations to me:

1. The Maximum Reallocation language only applies in the first year a resort opens
   1. I disagree with this and find it strange it took a week for them to come up with this answer when I asked the question on if this was defining an average nightly rate (at maximum) for a given Vacation Home Type. They even admitted some material from marketing may have suggested as such but would need to verify it.
   2. If it was truly intended for only the first year it would be phrased as such more clearly. As when I asked over 25+ years why it never was updated they implied it was for consistency across all resorts
2. In theory every use night, except 1, could go to whatever number they wanted as long as 1 use day is at the number described above. Always with the caveat the resort must be in balance as a whole
   1. Even the 1 use day they would not commit to and suggested that could only be for the first year too. The only thing they would commit to was the total points for a resort couldn't change
3. The Product Understanding Checklist is not legally binding and should not be viewed as prior DVC Management's interpretation of the POS's restrictions on reallocation
   1. This is in my direct question on why some gave reasons for Reallocation based only on seasonal demand, which in their words is very different and not what the 2020 point charts did only. They said going across Vacation Home Types was Accommodation Type Demand.
   2. They said it was removed from the Product Understanding Checklist to streamline the document and to make it more clear their intentions would be to have the ability to adjust across Home Types.
   3. They plan on looking into modifying the Product Understanding Checklist to specifically state that reallocation can occur across Home Types, Seasons, and Days
4. The line about "... that the total number of Home Resort Vaction Points existing in a given Unit.... at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" is only meant to say they can sell new points or create points into the resort because of a reallocation
   1. Personally I found them to stumble upon this language when I described it back to them above they said they couldn't describe it better than that. Seems odd lawyers couldn't do that
5. All guaranteed week shortages are made up by Disney and not taken from the resort. So if a guaranteed week costs 130 points now but the contract sold was only 110 Disney must take from the Developer Points 20, thus giving them less Developer Points.

Overall I do honestly believe if anyone were to want to get anywhere further they would need to focus on the original Product Understanding Checklist and if that was truly the original interpretation. They would need to prove that in court to uphold it. As for the maximum reallocation I'm still not convinced it applies to only the initial year the resort opens because no language in the POS suggests that.

Overall I appreciate their open and honest feedback but I respectfully disagree with their statements. As for the maximum reallocation language applying only the first year argument leads me to believe I might have been onto something there. Seems like they grasped at straws with their argument as nowhere the POS says or implies that. But a lawyer and arbitrator first would need to determine that, possibly moving onto a judge if arbitration didn't work.

See page 93 of the CCV POS for the section I argued and quoted above.

 

[Madame]

The Maximum Reallocation language only applies in the first year a resort opens

 

[crvetter]

My sentiments exactly. I think only a lawyer who specializes in Real Estate and Timeshare laws in Florida could really advance this issue any further. The fact that was their excuse (and not disagreeing with my interpretation of the Maximum Reallocation) makes me still think I was onto something.

 

[Grumpy6264]

Has anyone taken the time to balance a unit at one of the resorts to see if the points required to book that unit (or all the homes that make up that unit) have changed from one year to the next? My guess would be that if you take the number of dedicated studio, dedicated one bedroom, two bedroom (both dedicated and lock-off) and three bedrooms villas that make up a unit, you will find that the number of points from one year to the next is the same. This is how I interpret the following, "... that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing in a given Unit.... at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation".

If the points to book a dedicated vacation home (or 2 BR Lock-off) room changes, then there needs to be an offsetting adjustment somewhere else during the year that will balance the total points for that unit. It may be that a different season will change for the same size room, or that a different size room will change.

The premium of lock-off studios and 1 BR rooms are not included in this restriction, because points were not sold specifically for these type of rooms. The points were sold based upon a 2 BR. There are higher costs associated with splitting the 2 BR lock-off into a studio and 1 BR. There are two reservations, so two times the administration and two times the housekeeping (potentially). As costs rise (increase in hourly wages as an example), I would expect the premium for lock-offs to go up.

I can understand not being pleased with an increase in the points required, and maybe I am being naive. But, I think if an analysis was done on a Unit by Unit basis for a resort, you would find that the points the are required to fully utilize all vacation homes in a resort have not changed.

I am not saying that if there isn't an attempt to hide some shady practices, I just haven't see a detailed enough of an analysis to be able to say that something is not on the up and up. If this analysis was done and I missed it, then I apologize for taking up everyone time.

 

[dwg]

I do not believe that a leap year would affect my calculation. I simply added the weekly total of each type of unit and each season to come up with the total points on the point chart. For example under the Beach Club when you add the weekly points for each type of unit (Studio, 1 Bed. and 2 Bed.) across the Adventure Season the total points is 575 in 2019 and 597 in 2020. So when doing this across all seasons and unit types the total for 2019 was 3,622 and 2020 was 3737. So if points are only being reallocated from one season to another season or one type of unit to another type of unit in total nothing should change.

Also I am not sure I understand how the lockoff premium works. Is the lockoff premium a term used for the fact that the studio points combined with the 1 bedroom points are more that the points for a two bedroom during the same period or is there something else that I am missing?

For transparency and full disclosure maybe DVC could list the total points for each resort and along with the current point chart what changed from the prior year. In that way we would be able to see that total points did not change and we would be able to easily follow the changes that were made. This could be listed under documents on the website.

 

[crvetter]

Has anyone taken the time to balance a unit at one of the resorts to see if the points required to book that unit (or all the homes that make up that unit) have changed from one year to the next? My guess would be that if you take the number of dedicated studio, dedicated one bedroom, two bedroom (both dedicated and lock-off) and three bedrooms villas that make up a unit, you will find that the number of points from one year to the next is the same. This is how I interpret the following, "... that the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing in a given Unit.... at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation".

If the points to book a dedicated vacation home (or 2 BR Lock-off) room changes, then there needs to be an offsetting adjustment somewhere else during the year that will balance the total points for that unit. It may be that a different season will change for the same size room, or that a different size room will change.

The premium of lock-off studios and 1 BR rooms are not included in this restriction, because points were not sold specifically for these type of rooms. The points were sold based upon a 2 BR. There are higher costs associated with splitting the 2 BR lock-off into a studio and 1 BR. There are two reservations, so two times the administration and two times the housekeeping (potentially). As costs rise (increase in hourly wages as an example), I would expect the premium for lock-offs to go up.

I can understand not being pleased with an increase in the points required, and maybe I am being naive. But, I think if an analysis was done on a Unit by Unit basis for a resort, you would find that the points the are required to fully utilize all vacation homes in a resort have not changed.

I am not saying that if there isn't an attempt to hide some shady practices, I just haven't see a detailed enough of an analysis to be able to say that something is not on the up and up. If this analysis was done and I missed it, then I apologize for taking up everyone time.

Their interpretation was that sentence was to say they couldn't use the reallocation to create more points to sell. I think basically the lockoff premium really would be the only thing that could allow this to happen. They said this sentence was about ownership and total resort points not administration. It most definitely doesn't balance and that is actually known since a unit consists of any combination of Vacation Home Types.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

All based on the language in the POS, in particular Paragraph 3.3 of the Membership Agreement for Copper Creek (quoted below)

“However, with respect to the Condominium, each Club Member will always be eligible to reserve at the Condominium, subject to availability: at least one (1) Use Day in a Studio Vacation Home for every eighteen (18) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a One-Bedroom Vacation Home for every thirty-six (36) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Two-Bedroom Vacation Home for every forty-six (46) Home Resort Vacation Points; at least one (1) Use Day in a Grand Villa Vacation Home for every one hundred twenty-two (122) Home Resort Vacation Points; and at least (1) Use Day in a Cabin Vacation Home for every one hundred fifteen (1150 Home Resort Vacation Points. A maximum reallocation of Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of all seasons, such that Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements would have no variation based upon seasonality or different times of the year. Similarly, a maximum reallocation of Home Resort Vacation Point reservation requirements could result in a ‘leveling’ of differences in Vacation Point reservation Requirements based upon particular Use Days in the week. Participation in certain External Exchange Programs may be based on a week for week exchange, and require reservation and deposit of seven (7) consecutive Use Day Period in a One Bedroom or Two-Bedroom Vacation Home. Therefore, in the event of maximum reallocation as described in the preceding paragraph, a Club Member would be required (absent Banking and Borrowing) to have annual Home Resort Vacation Points of at least two hundred fifty-two (252) Home Resort Vacation Points (7 Use Days X 36 Home Resort Vacation Points per Use Day) to reserve and deposit a One-Bedroom Vacation for exchange through the External Exchange Program….”

DVC has provided the following explanations to me:

1. The Maximum Reallocation language only applies in the first year a resort opens
   1. I disagree with this and find it strange it took a week for them to come up with this answer when I asked the question on if this was defining an average nightly rate (at maximum) for a given Vacation Home Type. They even admitted some material from marketing may have suggested as such but would need to verify it.
   2. If it was truly intended for only the first year it would be phrased as such more clearly. As when I asked over 25+ years why it never was updated they implied it was for consistency across all resorts
2. In theory every use night, except 1, could go to whatever number they wanted as long as 1 use day is at the number described above. Always with the caveat the resort must be in balance as a whole
   1. Even the 1 use day they would not commit to and suggested that could only be for the first year too. The only thing they would commit to was the total points for a resort couldn't change
3. The Product Understanding Checklist is not legally binding and should not be viewed as prior DVC Management's interpretation of the POS's restrictions on reallocation
   1. This is in my direct question on why some gave reasons for Reallocation based only on seasonal demand, which in their words is very different and not what the 2020 point charts did only. They said going across Vacation Home Types was Accommodation Type Demand.
   2. They said it was removed from the Product Understanding Checklist to streamline the document and to make it more clear their intentions would be to have the ability to adjust across Home Types.
   3. They plan on looking into modifying the Product Understanding Checklist to specifically state that reallocation can occur across Home Types, Seasons, and Days
4. The line about "... that the total number of Home Resort Vaction Points existing in a given Unit.... at any time may not be increased or decreased because of any such reallocation" is only meant to say they can sell new points or create points into the resort because of a reallocation
   1. Personally I found them to stumble upon this language when I described it back to them above they said they couldn't describe it better than that. Seems odd lawyers couldn't do that
5. All guaranteed week shortages are made up by Disney and not taken from the resort. So if a guaranteed week costs 130 points now but the contract sold was only 110 Disney must take from the Developer Points 20, thus giving them less Developer Points.

Overall I do honestly believe if anyone were to want to get anywhere further they would need to focus on the original Product Understanding Checklist and if that was truly the original interpretation. They would need to prove that in court to uphold it. As for the maximum reallocation I'm still not convinced it applies to only the initial year the resort opens because no language in the POS suggests that.

Overall I appreciate their open and honest feedback but I respectfully disagree with their statements. As for the maximum reallocation language applying only the first year argument leads me to believe I might have been onto something there. Seems like they grasped at straws with their argument as nowhere the POS says or implies that. But a lawyer and arbitrator first would need to determine that, possibly moving onto a judge if arbitration didn't work.

See page 93 of the CCV POS for the section I argued and quoted above.

At the very least - every resort has been in direct, active sales for more than one year and those documents should have been updated annually. But of course that isn't what they meant.

Come on DVC - that's just a ridiculous answer on the Maximum Reallocation and now my Spidey Senses are tingling. If it was meant as only the first year that language would have been there.

 

[Wakey]

I am sorry but if they are genuine answers, this is unacceptable and I'm hoping the lawyer who is looking at it gets involved now.

 

[zavandor]

That's ridiculus.

 

[drusba]

Claiming the maximum reallocation provision was for first year has no support in language anywhere in any document and the section which is talking about something that could occur anytime in the future. That it is supposed to show the average cost per night if you did a maximum realocation of all the points applicable to reserving a vacation home for a year is addionallyproven by the second part of the maximum reallocation provision which talks about the number of points you would need for trading out any week in a 1BR or 2BR if there was a maximum reallocation -- that number stated as applicable to every week of the year equals 7 times the particular number shown for a night in a 1BR or 2BR if there were a maximum reallocation.

Asserting the clause prohibiting the total number of points in a unit from increasing or decreasing is only talking about points as sold and not as required for a room per night raises the obvious question of why then is it even mentioned at all in a paragraph that is talking only about adjusting points needed to reserve a vacation home rather than points sold.

As to whether the total number of points applicable to reserving all rooms in a unit have increased or decreased by the 2020 change, the answer is that at least the resorts that have dedicated studios or 1BRs, there are actually some units that contain only 1BRs and/or studios, so if both have gone up, the points needed to reserve those units for the year have necessarily increased. And at Poly only studios make up any studio units and its studios have all gone up year round.

 

[crvetter]

I should clarify I may have misinterpreted their explanation. But they did say the maximum reallocation language was in place to be utilized for setting up the point charts in the first year only.

As I said only a lawyer who specializes in this can answer anymore questions. Essentially we now know it wasn’t any error but a deliberate choice on their part.

As for lockoff premiums at those resorts without dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms I guess the only limitation is other resorts and what their dedicated studios and 1 bedrooms are priced at.

 

[crvetter]

Claiming the maximum reallocation provision was for first year has no support in language anywhere in any document and the section which is talking about something that could occur anytime in the future. That it is supposed to show the average cost per night if you did a maximum realocation of all the points applicable to reserving a vacation home for a year is addionallyproven by the second part of the maximum reallocation provision which talks about the number of points you would need for trading out any week in a 1BR or 2BR if there was a maximum reallocation -- that number stated as applicable to every week of the year equals 7 times the particular number shown for a night in a 1BR or 2BR if there were a maximum reallocation.

Asserting the clause prohibiting the total number of points in a unit from increasing or decreasing is only talking about points as sold and not as required for a room per night raises the obvious question of why then is it even mentioned at all in a paragraph that is talking only about adjusting points needed to reserve a vacation home rather than points sold.

As to whether the total number of points applicable to reserving all rooms in a unit have increased or decreased by the 2020 change, the answer is that at least the resorts that have dedicated studios or 1BRs, there are actually some units that contain only 1BRs and/or studios, so if both have gone up, the points needed to reserve those units for the year have necessarily increased. And at Poly only studios make up any studio units and its studios have all gone up year round.

I would agree their explanation was flimsy at best. But as I said at this point really only getting a lawyer would actually be able to help. That would be a costly endeavor and likely the first step would be them determine what their reading of the applicable sections are.

 

[DougEMG]

So the short version is DVC can interpret the POS however they like, change it however they like and do whatever they like. No protections at all for the owners.

Maybe I should look at selling some of my contracts just to reduce the risk in case Disney goes completely crazy.

 

[crvetter]

So the short version is DVC can interpret the POS however they like, change it however they like and do whatever they like. No protections at all for the owners.

Maybe I should look at selling some of my contracts just to reduce the risk in case Disney goes completely crazy.

I personally am following up in a written response this week (mailing tomorrow) thanking them for their time but asking if they could highlight the sections in the POS that specifically state it applies to the first year only and it’s interpretation in the first year. Get something in writing.

 

[DougEMG]

I personally am following up in a written response this week (mailing tomorrow) thanking them for their time but asking if they could highlight the sections in the POS that specifically state it applies to the first year only and it’s interpretation in the first year. Get something in writing.

Thanks for doing this.

 

[Dean]

I can't find this Exhibit as Exhibit A is the drawings in the POS that I have found. I was curious in reading it.

It's also the same basic info for my BWV 2005 POS except it changes the resort types. Basically it lays out how you get the # of points for a resort by breaking it down to the Villa level and seasons, determining the # of points you get per year per villa and then adding the number of such villas in a unit together to get the total per unit. It goes on to say this divided into your ownership in that unit is the % of your ownership. But it says something very interesting in the BWV 2005 & AKV POS, it says:

A "demand factor" shall be determined for the selected types of vacation homes (i.e. studio VH, 1 BR VH, 2 BR VH, 3 BR VH which cannot be locked off...

By the way, my BWV has 2 different Exhibit A's, this one is titled "Real Estate Interest and Points Formulation" and for my OKW and BWV for a total of 4 I looked at, occurs after the Master Cotenancy Agreement. This wording would seem to put the issue of lockoff's being counted separately to bed for OKW, AKV and BWV as least. I've got the initial AKV version.

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Is there a government entity that oversees timeshares?

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Just looked it up. The federal trade commission. Closed right now due to the shutdown, but you can file a complaint online:

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/media/video-0054-how-file-complaint

And the link to how they oversee timeshares:

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0073-timeshares-and-vacation-plans

 

[we"reofftoneverland]

Florida appears to have a department of business and development regulation that also takes complaints about timeshares. There is a specific complaint form.

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/DBPR/timeshares/forms-and-publications/

 

[drusba]

I personally am following up in a written response this week (mailing tomorrow) thanking them for their time but asking if they could highlight the sections in the POS that specifically state it applies to the first year only and it’s interpretation in the first year. Get something in writing.

Thanks for doing so. And I now realize how impossible it is for the clause to apply to first year only. Whenever a new resort opens you get, before it opens, the point chart for the year in which it opens and the point chart for the next year, and thus the earliest you could possibly have a maximum reallocation is the beginning of the third year. In other words, the first year claim is an assertion that the maximum reallocation clause is completely meaningless.